Tea and Anarchy

There’s a Jeffersonian rebellion afoot, one that rejects the elite media as much as our political overlords. Jacob Weisberg isn’t happy about that.

By Thomas E. Woods Jr.

According to Slate editor-in-chief Jacob Weisberg, a specter is haunting America: the specter of anarchism. Not real anarchism – that’s Weisberg’s emotional hypochondria at work – but merely a growing skepticism of authority.

This won’t do at all. Americans were born to be ruled by people and ideas of which Jacob Weisberg approves, and they are supposed to like it, or at least shut up about it. If they absolutely must complain, their complaints and modes of resistance must be kept within bounds approved of by Slate, a division of the Washington Post Company.

In other words, if these uppity peons would just stick to ideas and strategies chosen for them by their enemies, it would be easier for our betters to tolerate them.

Let’s hear from Weisberg himself. “The Tea Party movement has two defining traits: status anxiety and anarchism…. [It’s] a movement predominated by middle-class, middle-aged white men angry about the expansion of government and hostile to societal change.” I like Lew Rockwell’s reply: “Weisberg, need I mention, is a middle-class, middle-aged white man angry about any opposition to the expansion of government, and hostile to societal change not directed from the top. Oh, and no intellectual important in the current order is anxious about losing his status.”

The “Tea Party” designation refers to a diverse lot, and Weisberg is exaggerating its anti-establishment features. Some Tea Partiers speak of “taking our country back” while looking forward to pulling the lever for Mitt Romney in 2012, or think Sarah Palin, a complete nonentity, is a “maverick” despite being in Bill Kristol’s hip pocket. This branch of the Tea Party poses no threat to any established interest, and in fact strengthens the regime by misdirecting justifiable anger into officially approved channels.

But there is a sliver of genuine rebelliousness to be found here and there in the Tea Party, and it is this that Weisberg finds so awful and scary. “What’s new and most distinctive about the Tea Party,” he writes, “is its streak of anarchism – its antagonism toward any authority, its belligerent style of self-expression, and its lack of any coherent program or alternative to the policies it condemns.” Perhaps worst of all, Weisberg huffs, the peons don’t trust the experts, a designation they insist on preceding with the adjective “so-called”!

They don’t trust the experts? I can’t imagine why. Could it be that the experts told us the economy was fine in 2006? (James Galbraith admits this: only about a dozen economists predicted the financial crisis, according to him, though – natch – he pretends the Austrian economists do not exist.) Or maybe it’s because economist Paul Krugman said in 2001 that what the economy needed was low interest rates to spur housing – the very thing that gave rise to the housing bubble. Or maybe because Ben Bernanke denied there was a housing bubble, said lending standards were sound, denied that the subprime problem would spill over into the rest of the economy – there’s no real need to go on, since one of those uppity anarchists has collected these and other whoppers into one of those authority-undermining YouTubes that are destroying America.

I can’t resist one more example: Just two months before Fannie and Freddie collapsed and were taken over by the government, then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson told reporters not to worry: after all, he said, their regulator reported that they are adequately capitalized. When called on this two months later, Paulson denied having misled anyone: “I never said the company was well-capitalized. What I said is the regulator said they are adequately capitalized.”

You know what also might be turning people off, Jake? The implication that they may adopt only those views that have been vetted in advance by people who despise them, and that they must be deranged losers if they choose not to avail themselves of this kind solicitude from their betters.

I happen to be the author of a new book making the historical and moral case for state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws and urging that it be resuscitated as a live option, given the complete failure of all other efforts to limit the federal government. Weisberg will have none of this crazy talk, of course. No one consulted him before advocating this, and since none of his friends at Newsweek or the New York Times have given nullification the seal of approval as an officially permitted position, we are breaking all codes of gentlemanly conduct by speaking about it anyway.

In any case, says Weisberg, we all know nullification was “settled” in 1819, with McCulloch v. Maryland. McCulloch held that when the federal government exercised a constitutional power the states could not interfere with it. That of course begs rather than settles the question, since a nullifying state contends precisely that the federal government is not exercising a constitutional power. But in Weisberg’s world, everyone leaped to accept John Marshall’s ridiculous and unsupportable nationalist rendering of American history, a rendering completely at odds with what people had been told about the nature of the Union at many of the state ratifying conventions, and indeed at odds with the most obvious facts of American history. Back on planet Earth, states continued to resist the national bank for years afterward, “settled law” to the contrary notwithstanding, until its charter went unrenewed in the 1830s. Spencer Roane, the chief judge of Virginia’s Supreme Court, completely dismantled Marshall and his reasoning in a series of unrelenting critiques. James Madison said Virginia would never have ratified the Constitution had anyone thought the federal government’s powers to be as expansive as John Marshall was proposing, given that exactly the opposite view of the new government was expressly promised to the people at the Richmond ratifying convention (where Marshall sat mute instead of correcting this impression). Thomas Jefferson wrote the following year: “The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated republic. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone.”

Oh, and I suppose someone forgot to tell Wisconsin it was violating “settled law” when it declared the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 unconstitutional in 1859 and acted accordingly.

For Slate, a “settled” issue is simply one they don’t want discussed. Normal people consider an issue “settled” when the arguments for both sides have been exhaustively heard, and with reason as the arbiter one side emerges triumphant. That has not occurred in this case. Contrary to popular belief, Daniel Webster was judged the loser of the Webster-Hayne debate at the time. Littleton Waller Tazewell crushed Andrew Jackson’s convoluted proclamation on nullification, as I note in my book, but no one hears or knows about this exchange today. Nationalism is the best way to organize human society, students are told, and that’s that. Anyone who thinks otherwise is too perverse to be worth mentioning.

“The tricorn hats and powder horns carried by Revolutionary re-enactors,” Weisberg continues, “point to the most extreme libertarian view: a Constitutional fundamentalism that would limit the federal government to the exercise of enumerated powers.” That’s not even close to “the most extreme libertarian view,” of course, not that Weisberg actually knows anything about libertarianism, but it does happen to be what one state ratifying convention after another was told would be the guiding rule of constitutional interpretation. This is now “wacko,” fashionable opinion at Slate having supplanted the state ratifying conventions as the arbiters of matters constitutional. This would also make Thomas Jefferson “wacko,” but Weisberg prefers (surprise!) not to mention Jefferson.

I had a bit of fun at Weisberg’s expense in my book Meltdown, where I quoted his impatient lecture to libertarians – why, don’t these people realize that their stupid commitment to the free market is what got us into this mess in the first place? Libertarians should just shut up and let the grownups put things right. Not a word about central banking and the teensy-weensy role it might have played in the financial implosion. He need not deign to acknowledge this line of argument. Criticism of central banking didn’t make it onto the three-by-five card on which Weisberg has written out all allowable opinions, so that view doesn’t really exist in any sense that matters.

What makes nullification so much fun is (1) that opponents of the idea almost invariably know none of the relevant history, so they find themselves reduced to stomping their feet and shouting (or trying to win arguments by dumb-guy smears); and (2) the sheer horror of the political and media classes when confronted by people who refuse to be force-fed the two feckless alternatives that Slate and the rest of the establishment want them to choose from.

Weisberg then speculates that people whose political views do not fall along that compendious spectrum from Hillary Clinton to Mitch McConnell may be mentally deranged – these people’s views are “nutball.” But the main problem with the people Weisberg identifies is that they refuse to be told what to think, and they shun media outlets that insult them. They’re not interested in debating what Slate wants them to debate – e.g., whether the top marginal income tax rate should be 39 percent or 39.8 percent. They want to discuss matters a smidge more significant than that. They refuse to read from the script Slate keeps trying to hand them. That is what makes them so troublesome.

Of course, the people Weisberg has in mind do not read Slate in the first place, so they won’t even see his funny article. Even worse, how do you insult people who don’t care what authority says about them? It’s enough to drive a commissar crazy.

Weisberg thinks the problem with the Tea Party is that it’s too unpredictable. That sure isn’t Weisberg’s problem. His first book was called In Defense of Government.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 19 comments

19 Responses to Tea and Anarchy

“a growing skepticism of authority…” Oh yes, & it will become more visable as the economy gets worse. I guess Weisberg has come a long ways in maturing from his first book, but that’s good.

There’s another book out that everyone might read that’s about Americans in a small town that stand up to inept govt. & ends up starting the 2nd American Revolution. Hey, the same issues are there (continual foreign wars, bankrupt govt. no representation in govt., bureaucrats crossing the land & harassing the citizens). It could be our home town one day so it’s a great read. I recommend it.http://www.booksbyoliver.com

I wish there was a healthy streak of anarchy in the tea party. Usual brilliance I expect from Tom Woods. Nothin’ but the best!

I wish the tea party good luck, but I think they will be subverted, tamed, and absorbed by the neo con War State Republicans. I doubt a fundamental, or even superficial, change in course on the road to the Total State is possible at this point. It’s on autopilot flying into the side of a mountain while we argue about who sits in the pilot’s seat.

Wicked good article. You’ve wonderfully captured the obtuse, ancien regime reflexes of these people. As their pronouncements are contradicted by reality and overtaken by events that they don’t understand, they’re reduced to making a virtue of their intellectual incompetence and lack of practical experience by whining that “no one saw it coming” or “who could have known”.

Well, Mr. Weisberg, there were a hell of a lot of people who did see it coming. They’re people who work for a living, whose educations and life competence very likely substantially exceed yours. They just went into different lines of work and didn’t pay much attention to the likes of you. But now they’re paying very close attention. And they’re finding that you and your kind don’t measure up.

Vermont, Georgia and South Dakota were able to cast ballots as early as this past Monday and balloting gets underway in a few days in Iowa and Wyoming, the Wall Street Journal reports. In Ohio, the battleground state where a U.S. Senate seat and governor’s chair are up for grabs, voting begins voting next Tuesday, as it does also in Nebraska. At least 24 more states will allow what amounts to no-fault absentee voting sometime in October.

Thaaaaaaaaaaat’s right boys and girls. . . . .early voting has already started in some states, on September 20, 2010.

And get more neo con Bs from the very disappointing contract with America 2. I feel for the Tea partiers as they’ve been bought and sold by the Kochs of this world and will end up voting for the very opposite of what they say they want. If you’re against big government then how can you support having an empire?

In terms of cutting the deficit for which the Bush tax cuts renewal would explode just what would you really cut? If it’s medicaid/medicare good luck with that one. Thats old ppl stuff and they always vote. Hmm they want to expand the military so obviously not that… theres really not that many places left in which to save the money. I think the above count for over half federal spending if you add in homeland security CIA FBI etc etc. So the massive savings will come from where?

My vote tbh is off the military/empire building/homeland security/CIA/farm subsidy price support spending etc first.I’m sure there’s lots of petty bs spending here and there but we’re in the hole for big dollars not petty. If your upset about whats happening now just wait till Boehner gets in and ramps military spending while tax takes (from the wealthiest 1% ) plummet. We’ve got real trouble ahead under the new Repub. proposals. Our new candidates are voted in for parroting Fox news talking points but none of them appear to have done a damn thing in their own lives except break Hewlett Packard and take a giant payout to leave.

Absolutely, lets get the Republicans back into the majority asap so we can get the neocons up front and center again instead of behind the curtain. This will instantly improve our economy as our war machine continues at full pace. We don’t really want to bring our troops home anyway and put them into real domestic jobs. We are going to need them for the next 100 years of global conflict.
Except….
the American economy is not going to provide the gold in the streets so many have been accustomed to. Being the world’s policemen will eventually come to halt as the money runs out.
And, no politican can tell you the truth, or they won’t get elected.

Im kinda tempted to see just what kind of disaster Palin would be as President both in dealing with unfriendly cultures or even Europeans who are not inclined to forget American insults and the neocon/tea party effect on the domestric economy. Just what kind of country woulod we end up with with no social security?

Will the tea party movement get behind Romney the likely GOP candidate in 2012? Much of it will I suspect. He’ll put a Palin approved VP candidate on the ticket. Like most politicians he seems all about getting elected with few firm principles. That said he had an outstanding reputation as a straight shooting capable CEO at Bain and Company Consulting.I may be mistaken but it seems to me he is may take some Ron Paul ideas seriously re foreign policy even if just to keep the budget in check.

Funny, the article is in support of the common sense of Tea Partiers, and, more important, their refusal to swallow the bilge comming out of the Elite opinion gatekeepers.

But the majority of commenters, so far, do nothing but attack Tea Partiers for being mindless zombies following the neocons.

Those commenters sound like Democratic Party operatives.

Now, I grant you, there are co-opters in the midst of the Tea Party, who want Globalistic phony free trade and Neocon perpetual war.

But what does the Democratic Party leadership and their handmaidens in the media, like the Washington Post have to offer?

No, the answer is not to smear the Tea Party (like the Democratic operatives commenting, here), but to get out and spread the word:

Limited government and Neocon military empire are not compatible.

Globalist phony free trade and a strong American economy with plentiful jobs are not compatible.

Both of these propositions are demonstrable with facts & evidence from history and economic data.

And, remember, the Globalists want centralized all-powerful government which fosters dependence of the citizens (as opposed to independent citizens) because the Globalists know they can more easily control a centralized, dependence fostering government.

Socialism is the handmaiden of the Globalist plans — socialism wipes out the middle class.

Local control (and independent sus-sustaining citizens) is the best hope for maintaining the Constitutional Republic which made this nation the envy of the world.

The Tea Party get’s that basic point.

It’s up to us to call out the clear and present danger of perpetual war, Neocon foreign policy, and Globalist phony free trade.

Jim
It appears at this time that the Palinites, not the Paulites, have the upper hand in the Tea Party. Not good for those who hold liberty dear.

As to socialism, the State is the enforcer of socialism. Every action of the State is socialistic. Those who support the State support socialism, period. The State does nothing if not socialism.

“Local control” was doomed the moment the federalists got their constitution rammed through and created the monster in DC, just as the anti-federalists said. For a few fleeting years under the Articles of Confederation we had local control, but not since. The constitution paved the way for the steady and unstoppable march to the Total State. “Commerce clause”, “General Welfare”, and “Common Defense” have been used as justification for every link of the chains of bondage that now have us hopelessly ensnared.

No constitution is worth the parchment it is written on for the simple reason that it is the State, which it claims to protect you from, that “decides” what is and is not constitutional. At best the constitution has been a minor impediment easily gotten around, and at worst, the justification for State totalitarianism.

This is why talk of a “return to constitutional values” is complete hogwash. We never left them.

There is no social security, it can not be paid out because it doesn’t exist neither can Medicare/Medicaid, nor union pensions etc. It was all lies for votes.

You ask what kind of country without social security, we will all find out becuase like it or not that’s what the future holds.

Look at Europe it is starting to unravel now; just the beginning as people find out the whole Socialist Utopia is a big lie from big brother. You can inflate to pay social security and the money will be worthless, you can tax an ever shrinking productive sector of the economy until it revolts or collapses or you can face the financial facts and have riots and social discord. Thank you Karl Marx, thank you FDR.

what a bunch of nonsense!
Local control, as here defined, would give us Jim Crow and titans like Rockefeller and Carnaigie who gave a pittance to burnish thier piratical behavior. did you know that the so-called states militias at the time of the revolution were nearly worthless without the arms and support provided by the central government.
don’t tread on me adds up to let me tread on anybody i can.

You would have to be deaf, blind and illiterate to not see the anarchist tendencies inherit in the teapublcian rhetoric. They want no public institutions, they want complete government disassociation from funding of anything, they want everybody to be punished under God’s law and a complete dismantling of the Constitution. They can say “we’re patriots” but it’s just a word to them, entirely without meaning. They have no respect for their fellow man and want to do nothing to help their neighbor or ensure the betterment of their country. The party was founded by the David Koch who is in love with the idea of Anarchy. That’s why you have this fear-mongering crap about “Socialism” in the media and so much coverage of a small fringe group fed a perverted view of history (by the media again) that doesn’t take into account why the Boston Tea Party was so angry at the East India company or why patriots took up arms over taxation without representation.

The stupidity in this country is astonishing. But it’s not the fault of the citizens, there have always been really stupid people, it’s the media taking advantage of their ignorance and fear that is to blame, especially for steering them toward Anarchism cloaked in patriotism.